I'm not sure I really have to convince anyone here of the premise of the headline of this article; numerous people have already posted here about how useful Curtis Granderson would be in the Cubs' outfield, and several traditional media articles in both Chicago and Detroit have discussed this possibility (and those are just three examples of dozens of such articles). Granderson himself is busy this winter pitching a reality TV series:

The Detroit Tigers player has agreed to host a TV and online series titled "Stadium Secrets" where he takes sports fans on an exploration of stadiums.

The concept is similar to Authentic’s "Cities of the Underworld" on History channel.

"Authentic will be providing an exclusive, VIP experience for fans everywhere – a behind-the-scenes journey that will be exciting for all of us. I am eager to begin working on this project and look forward to a successful partnership," Granderson said.

Sounds interesting. I'm hoping Granderson gets to explore Wrigley Field in detail starting next summer. In the meantime, after the jump I'm going to examine Granderson's numbers in detail, explain why he's a perfect fit for Chicago and the Cubs, and look at who the Cubs might have to give the Tigers in exchange.

Continue reading this post »

I can't take credit for this one -- it was first suggested in this comment in the Pat Burrell Fanshot last night -- but I think it's worth investigating, as a deal sending Milton Bradley to Tampa Bay, Pat Burrell to the Rangers, and Kevin Millwood to the Cubs would help all three teams.

The Rays were one of the suitors for Bradley last offseason and a Bradley-for-Burrell deal has apparently been on and off the table between the Cubs and Rays since the middle of the 2009 season. Thus, we know they still have interest in him, and given the fact that Bradley has said he doesn't like to be in the spotlight, Tampa, a low-key baseball environment, might be very good for him.

Here's the problem with Burrell as a Cub, though: he's a DH. Last year, he played only two games in the outfield, starting one (in RF) and playing two innings in LF in the other. He wasn't a very good outfielder when he was with the Phillies; he played 1B, his "best" natural fielding position, in his first full major league season, then moved to the outfield because the Phillies acquired players (Travis Lee and then Jim Thome) who would have been even worse in the outfield than Burrell.

Since the National League doesn't have the DH rule -- yet; I still expect that having the DH in the NL will be a bargaining chip in the next round of player/owner labor negotiations -- Burrell would be useless to the Cubs, even as a backup. You wouldn't want him in the outfield, and he'd be an expensive piece to sit on the bench and pinch-hit twice a week and maybe spell Derrek Lee at 1B once a month.

Ah, but the Texas Rangers do need a designated hitter. About half of the DH duty in Arlington in 2009 was handled by Andruw Jones, who wasn't much better than Burrell last year, and who is a free agent. Burrell's decline with the Rays last year is mystifying -- he was coming off a .875 OPS season in Philadelphia in 2008 where he had 33 HR and 102 walks, which ranked third in the NL. You'd have to think he'd rebound in 2010, playing in the launching pad which is Rangers Ballpark.

Continue reading this post »

Last year about this time, I made this post discussing what I thought should be the makeup of the 2009 Cubs.

Brave, isn't it, of me to post that link when I'd just as soon forget about it. I was shouted down and laughed at (people are still giving me grief for the Kevin Millar thing, and they were absolutely correct), and had the Cubs put that 25-man roster on the field last April, they'd undoubtedly have had a much worse season than they did in real life (case in point: Alex Hinshaw, who I thought was an up-and-coming LOOGY, threw only six major league innings in 2009, posting a 12.00 ERA).

So let me go about this project this year in a different sort of way. A year ago (actually, October 20, 2008 was the date I wrote the post about my proposed 2009 roster) we were all still stunned and angry that the 97-win team that had dominated the National League all season went three-and-out in the playoffs. This was before Lou's "we've gotta get more lefthanded" mantra led us to the Milton Bradley disaster, before popular favorites Kerry Wood and Mark DeRosa were let go, and a lot of us were wondering, "How can we make a team that good into one that will win 11 games in October?"

Jim Hendry and Co. were asking themselves the same question, obviously, but came up with the wrong answer. Without rehashing what we've rehashed all summer long, clearly, it didn't work -- and not just because of Hendry's moves, but because players like Alfonso Soriano, Geovany Soto and Mike Fontenot seriously underperformed their 2008 numbers by considerable margins and for various reasons, and because Aramis Ramirez, who is the Cubs' best hitter, missed 50 games with a dislocated shoulder and wasn't at full strength the rest of the season, eventually playing in only 82 games.

I believe in what new owner Tom Ricketts said at his introductory press conference: that the Cubs already have the talent that can win the World Series, and only need a few tweaks to bring the club back to pennant-contending level. I'm also going to assume that what we've heard about player payroll is correct: that it will be increased, if only "slightly", from 2009, and thus will wind up at (approximately) $145 million. That will rank third in baseball, behind the Yankees and Red Sox.

Thus, instead of trying to build a roster simply by picking pieces from here and there, let's use that $145 million to put together a winning team.

Continue reading this post »

I suppose this post could have waited till next week, but once again we are faced with more than 48 hours between games -- for the last time in 2009 -- and so I thought I'd start some discussion this morning with these things that I think were done poorly by Cubs GM Jim Hendry since the end of the 2008 season.

Hendry got a three-year contract extension (through the 2012 season) after last year's successful regular season, with the hope that 2009 would be even better. It didn't work out that way; Hendry had about as bad an offseason last year as any GM in recent memory, but with new ownership poised to take over, it isn't the right time to blow everything up and start over. Hendry will be given at least one more year to get things back on the track we thought the Cubs were on during their two-year run as NL Central champions in 2007 and 2008.

Some of the problems with the 2009 Cubs were not Hendry's fault and many of them were beyond his control. It's not Hendry's fault that Aramis Ramirez dislocated his shoulder four weeks into the season and missed a total of 75 games (through yesterday). A-Ram produced above his usual level (.906 OPS, compared to his career level of .847) and I think we all agree that the Cubs missed his production in the two months he was out from mid-May to mid-July, not to mention that he wasn't at full strength on his return. To have produced the way he did after the All-Star break -- without complaining -- is a credit to Ramirez's work ethic and ability. It's not Hendry's fault that Alfonso Soriano played most of the year injured, though he perhaps could have insisted harder that Soriano have arthroscopic surgery in June, and maybe he'd have been ready in September. It's not Hendry's fault that all the Opening Day rotation starters spent time on the disabled list, forcing the Cubs to have 21 starts made by guys (Sean Marshall, Kevin Hart, Tom Gorzelanny and Jeff Samardzija) whose performance can best be called "uneven". (The Cubs were 9-12 in those 21 games.)

Credit where credit is due: give Jim credit for recognizing that Randy Wells could help the team as a starter, though I don't think anyone could have guessed he'd be as good as he has been. Credit for giving Koyie Hill the backup catcher job; he's been very good in that role. And credit for getting John Grabow and Gorzelanny for, essentially, nothing; Grabow will likely be retained as a key part of the 2010 bullpen and Gorzelanny, though his performance has been up and down, does have talent and will be in the mix for the 2010 rotation.

With that in mind, below the fold you'll find ten ideas Hendry must internalize and go by as he builds a roster for 2010. (Not necessarily in priority order.)

Continue reading this post »

At last, BCB readers have had the influence over Cubs management that we have long sought. There have been numerous readers here who have sung the praises of Micah Hoffpauir. But Lou Piniella took his cue from BCB readers Clutche and cubswynn, who have been the most adamant Hoffpauir supporters on this site, and has named the hottest spring training hitter on the club, Micah Hoffpauir, as the Cubs' starting first baseman. Said Lou: "The BCB readers are right. Micah's leading everyone in RBI's. Why shouldn't he start?"

D-Lee

To make room for Hoffpauir in the starting lineup, Jim Hendry took my suggestion from last October 22 (and to think, so many of you laughed at me when I suggested this) and, after several weeks' worth of secret negotiations carried out at the Paradise Bakery in Scottsdale (the very same location where Nomar Garciaparra himself, the subject of one of Hendry's biggest deals, was spotted buying bagels and coffee during spring training in 2005), Hendry convinced San Francisco GM Brian Sabean to take the two remaining years on Derrek Lee's contract in exchange for pitcher Matt Cain.

M-Cain

"We love Derrek, but after Sean Marshall's performance yesterday, we felt we needed some more depth in the starting rotation," said Hendry. "Sean can go to Iowa and keep Jeff Samardzija company."

BCB reader ballhawk said he'd miss Lee and all the balls he hit onto Waveland during batting practice, but that Cain's 19 HR allowed in 2008 "showed promise".

Negotiations with D-Lee to get him to waive his no-trade clause were complicated. They involved a supply of ice cream sundaes for his six-year-old daughter Jada for as long as Derrek plays for the Giants, and a promise that she could meet Dora the Explorer when Dora's live tour comes to a city near where the Giants are playing. Lee said he'd miss Cubs fans, as he's become one of the most popular Cubs, but said, "I'll be closer to my home in Sacramento. Plus, I can hit cleanup for the Giants -- I mean, come on. Bengie Molina hitting cleanup?"

Both players will report to their new clubs for action this afternoon. That is, unless they look at the calendar and realize what day today is.

That's the top of today's dead-tree edition of the Chicago Tribune.

Inside are two articles, one by two business section reporters, covering what changes might be made to the ballpark and other possibilities for new revenue, and one by Paul Sullivan discussing the possible changes that might occur to the team itself.

Sullivan mentions something that I've long speculated about:

Mark McGuire, the Cubs' executive vice president of business operations and a team employee since Tribune Co. bought the team in 1981, believes the new owner might bring in more people rather than get rid of those already in place. McGuire told fans at the Cubs Convention last week that the team has one of the smallest front offices in baseball.

I think that's one of the first things you'll see -- beefing up the existing full-time, year-round staff, including both the non-baseball and baseball operations departments. The scouting staff needs help, and I think you would all be surprised at how small the ticket department is, considering how many tickets the Cubs sell.

A lot of the rest of Sullivan's article consists of things we've discussed here, ranging from some guy who pitches for the San Diego Padres to the idea that the team may pitch for more night games (or, at the very least, having the right to play some Friday night games after road trips, which makes sense to me).

The article in the business section discusses ways that the Cubs could generate additional revenue. Many of these things have also been discussed on this site, including the "Triangle Building" that may finally get built:

There also is renewed interest in Tribune Co.'s shelved idea to construct a triangular-shaped building that would include stores and restaurants along Clark Street and create a pedestrian walkway outside Wrigley, similar to Yawkey Way outside Fenway Park, home of the Red Sox.

On game days, Yawkey Way is closed to traffic, and ticket-holders enter it, and the ballpark, through turnstiles. The setup, and wide mix of vendors, is similar to Eutaw Street outside Baltimore's Camden Yards, where the Orioles play, and enables the teams to profit from pregame spending.

Before Yawkey Way, fans were spending pregame dollars in the neighborhood of Fenway, but they weren't coming in.

"People didn't pass through the turnstile until right before the game," said Janet Marie Smith, senior vice president of planning and development for the Red Sox and architect behind the renovation of Fenway and development of Oriole Park at Camden Yards. "In order to stay competitive, we've got to make money."

Similar efforts at Wrigley, which has protected status as an official city landmark and must retain its traditional look, might aid the ballpark but could come at the expense of neighborhood street vendors, restaurants and bars.

"There are a lot of people who make money on the Cubs that are not paying the players," Ganis said. "There is no other team in baseball that has the number of businesses piggybacking on the team that the Cubs do. Increase the pie, but the Cubs have to get a bigger slice."

I wouldn't expect any existing streets to be closed; the pedestrian area they're talking about would probably be created in the area which is now parking for Cubs players and office staff (those people would then park in the triangle building itself).

Some of the other ideas discussed in that article include a Cubs TV network, which I would expect to happen as soon as the economy improves and they can get it carried on cable and satellite nationwide; adding a larger stadium club, and extending the upper deck. And for those of you gnashing your teeth over the possibility of the Cubs selling naming rights to Wrigley Field:

Other revenue-generating opportunities have potential but also may have to wait. The notion of selling some version of naming rights at Wrigley is off the table, sources said.

Finally, an old friend of Tom Ricketts, who used to live with him in that apartment across from the ballpark, says we've got the right guy:

Curt Conklin once lived with Tom Ricketts in an apartment just outside Wrigley Field, and the two were regulars at Cubs games. He knows Ricketts wasn't just a fan, but could recite Rick Sutcliffe's 1984 statistics (20-6, 3.64 ERA).

"The success of his life is that he has done this (built his company) 100 percent on his own," said Conklin, a day after it was announced Tribune Co. selected the family's bid for exclusive negotiations. Without being a meddler, Ricketts' drive and decision-making ability would be good for the team, he said.

"He's really smart, he really loves baseball and he really loves the Cubs," said Conklin, who worked at the Ricketts' family company, TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., and for InCapital LLC, which Tom Ricketts founded.

Sounds perfect to me. We are about to embark on a new Cubs era, where "one of us" is in charge.

In this morning's Tribune, Fred Mitchell reports that Lou Piniella hasn't settled on a closer yet:

photo via mlb.mlb.com

"Let them compete," Piniella said during the Cubs Convention. "I feel comfortable with Marmol, no question. But we traded for this other young man, and he was a closer over (with the Florida Marlins) with success. Give him a chance too."

To which I say, excellent! Carlos Marmol has the best stuff in the Cubs' bullpen. Many teams have taken that "best stuff" guy and made him their closer. But often, closers come into games in low-leverage situations: ninth inning, three-run lead, bases empty. Most major league pitchers can get three outs and pile up saves in those situations. Often, the tougher situations come in the 7th or 8th innings, with games tied or only a one-run lead and runners in scoring position. Last year, Kevin Gregg, while closing for the Marlins, walked 37 batters in 68.2 innings. Marmol walked 41 in 87.1 innings, and 14 of those 41 walks came in that inexplicably bad 15-game stretch between June 19 and July 24 when he allowed 11 earned runs in 12.2 innings and his season ERA jumped from 2.09 to 3.40. After that he settled down and from July 26 to the end of the season, a span covering 30 appearances and 31.2 innings, he walked only 12, struck out 39 and posted a 1.42 ERA.

photo via i2.cdn.turner.com

Meanwhile, Gregg had eight saves (out of his season total of 29) where he issued at least one walk. Before several September games in which he was used in situations where the Marlins were either behind or well ahead, he was used in the 8th inning only three times all year (the only times he posted a save of longer than one inning, and once where the Marlins were well behind and it appears Fredi Gonzalez just wanted to give him some work). He did get better about the walks in the second half of the year (27 before the All-Star break, 10 after, but then, he made 46 of his 72 appearances before the break). I'm just not convinced that putting Gregg in setup situations where he might come into a tie game with the bases loaded in the 8th inning -- where a walk puts you behind -- is the best use for a guy like him without pinpoint control.

There's no doubt in my mind that Marmol can handle the closer role -- he did so effectively while Kerry Wood was on the DL in midseason 2008, and he has the stuff and the right mindset for it. But would holding out Marmol for the ninth inning only mean that Gregg, setting him up, would have blown the lead and there wouldn't be anything for Marmol to save?

Kevin Gregg is probably a one-year Cub; he'll be a free agent after 2009, and that gives Cub relievers like Jeff Samardzija and Angel Guzman one more season to be eased into a setup role for Marmol, who could take over as closer in 2010. For now, I think the best use of Lou Piniella's bullpen would be for Gregg to close, after Marmol has put out the fires in the 7th or 8th inning.

Jake Peavy.

There, I said it.

JakePeavyJakePeavyJakePeavyJAKEPEAVY!

photo via i.a.cnn.net

You don't need me to recap the story about why Peavy, one of the best pitchers in the NL and a former Cy Young Award winner, is on the trading block. You also don't need me to recap the endless trade rumors posted here and elsewhere over the last three months. One reason I didn't post much about those rumors is that I got tired of hearing updates seemingly every time Kevin Towers went to the bathroom. Farting out new trade rumors is pretty unseemly from a general manager and we can, I think, all be happy that Jim Hendry doesn't conduct business that way. For example, we all knew Felix Pie was on the trading block. But before yesterday's trade announcement, had you heard any specific rumors of Felix-to-Baltimore? Or that Garrett Olson was on Hendry's radar? There were some brief mentions at MLBTR last November, but nothing came of it till yesterday, and you didn't hear breathless updates every day. That is, I think, a much better way to do business.

Some of you think that because I've scoffed at some of the more ridiculous rumors, that I don't want Jake Peavy as a Cub. That's silly -- who wouldn't want such a pitcher? I do have some concerns: he's had some arm trouble in the last year (been there, done that), doesn't pitch quite as well outside of the pitcher's paradise that is Petco Park (2.77 ERA at home, 3.80 on the road, and 34 more HR allowed on the road than at home in almost 100 fewer innings), and has a contract that could turn into an albatross even for a deep-pocketed new owner.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Peavy, who will turn 28 in May, would be a fine addition to the Cubs' already excellent starting rotation. So why am I bringing this up now?

Because it seems pretty clear that yesterday's trade of Pie to the Orioles for Garrett Olson and Henry Williamson could be part of an overall off-season strategy by Jim Hendry to eventually land Peavy, whether it be now or during spring training or at the trading deadline.

As noted above, Olson was a player that Kevin Towers had expressed some interest in. Hendry is now dealing from a position of a little more strength. He has a pitcher Towers could want; he's got a shortstop (Ronny Cedeno) Towers can use, and perhaps one or more of the pitchers acquired in the Mark DeRosa deal from Cleveland could be put into this deal.

Many of you have suggested Josh Vitters could or should be part of a Peavy trade, but I wouldn't do that -- for this simple reason: you don't have to. If the Padres really do have to get rid of Peavy's contract -- this article implies they do -- Hendry is, again, in a position of strength. If there's no Peavy deal, he has an extra lefthanded body to compete for the fifth spot in the rotation in Olson.

The link above suggests that Vitters is a necessary part of a Peavy trade, but it might be able to get done for Cedeno, Olson, Kevin Hart and another prospect or two, perhaps Jeff Stevens, the "major-league-ready" pitcher obtained from Cleveland. This would give San Diego three players with major league experience, and one (Stevens) who could step in to San Diego's 2009 bullpen. Heck, send 'em Rich Hill, too.

Again, Jake Peavy is a very good pitcher. Would his acquisition guarantee the Cubs a World Series? No, it would not. Last year's Cubs had the best 1-to-5 rotation in the National League. That got them exactly zero wins in the postseason. What it would do is push Rich Harden into the #5 spot where he could skip a start now and then, and Sean Marshall back to the bullpen where he'd be a swingman. Jim Hendry doesn't have to make this deal -- the Cubs ought to be NL Central favorites without it, and this would simply be a bonus. And, since the Padres are the ones saying they "have" to make this deal, Hendry can deal from a position of strength, and if necessary, wait the Padres out till July. Hendry appears to be approaching this offseason methodically, with a plan that might take till the end of spring training to be fulfilled.

So, as always, I counsel patience, and we, as always, await developments.